ORDERS:
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
In
the above-captioned matter, Petitioner William C. Dinwiddie, Jr. seeks to
challenge the assessed value of his property, which is located on Morrison
Street, in Charleston County, South Carolina, identified as Tax Map Number 764-14-00-079,
by Respondent Charleston County Assessor (Assessor) for tax year 2005. In his
Preliminary Tax Appeal Statement, the Assessor contends that Petitioner's
challenge to the 2005 tax assessment of his property was not timely. The
Assessor contends Petitioner failed to timely provide the Assessor with written
notice of objection to the assessment. Accordingly, a hearing on the issue of
the timeliness of Petitioner’s written notice of objection to the assessment
was held on August 10, 2006.
Based
upon the arguments and evidence presented at that hearing, I find that
Petitioner failed to timely file a written notice of objection to the
assessment. As a result, I further find that Petitioner failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies with Charleston County before bringing this contested
case and that this case must, therefore, be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
By
notice of assessment dated and mailed June 14, 2005, the Assessor assessed the
value of the property at issue in this matter. On the notice of assessment
appears the language, “If you disagree with the Appraisal & Assessment, you
must file written objection with the assessor on/or before 09/12/2005.”
Petitioner filed a written objection to the assessment with the Assessor which
was dated November 28, 2005 and stamped received by the Charleston County
Assessor’s Office on December 2, 2005. By letter dated December 16, 2005, D.
Michael Huggins, Charleston County Assessor, informed Petitioner that “the
legal time for requesting a review of the valuation and assessment of the
property for tax year 2005 has expired.” Petitioner filed an appeal of the assessment
with the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) on January 9,
2006.
In the January
1, 2006 letter, Petitioner claims he didn’t appeal the reassessment by the
September deadline because he did not think taxes could go up so much.
Because
Petitioner's written objection to the assessment was not timely filed with the
assessor, the Board dismissed Petitioner's appeal by a letter dated February 8,
2006. Petitioner then filed a request for a contested case to challenge the
assessed value of the subject property with this Court on February 23, 2006.
DISCUSSION
For
the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's case must be dismissed because of his
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies with Charleston County before
requesting a contested case before this Court.
The
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies generally requires a person
seeking relief from the action of an administrative agency to pursue all
available administrative remedies before seeking such relief from the courts. See, e.g., Pullman Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 234 S.C. 365, 108 S.E.2d
571 (1959); see generally Richard H. Seamon, Administrative
Agencies—General Concepts and Principles, in South Carolina Administrative
Practice and Procedure 1, 83-96 (Randolph R. Lowell & Stephen P. Bates
eds. 2004). However, as recognized in the South Carolina Revenue Procedures
Act, this exhaustion principle applies not only when a party is seeking
judicial review of an agency action, but also when a party is seeking review of
an agency action before another administrative agency, such as the South
Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC). See S.C. Code Ann. §
12-60-30(14)-(15) (Supp. 2005) (defining both the exhaustion of administrative
remedies that is required before judicial review of a tax matter may be had and
the exhaustion of agency remedies that is required before a party may seek
contested case review of a tax matter by the ALC).
Where
a party has sought relief from the courts or another agency after entirely
forgoing its remedies before the initiating agency, a dismissal by the reviewing
court or agency for failure to exhaust administrative remedies may completely
preclude review by the court or agency because the party's opportunity to cure
its failure to exhaust its remedies before the initiating agency has expired. See, e.g., Meredith v. Elliott, 247 S.C. 335, 346-47, 147 S.E.2d 244, 249
(1966) ("Having failed to follow the administrative remedy created by the
statute for the correction of errors in the valuation of their property,
[taxpayers] are precluded from resorting to the courts for relief."); Lominick
v. City of Aiken, 244 S.C. 32, 44, 135 S.E.2d 305, 310 (1964) ("It was
incumbent upon [the challenging party]... to appeal to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment from the decision of the Building Inspector if [she]... considered
his decision erroneous.... Not having done so, she cannot now attack the
validity of his decision."); see also Brackenbrook North
Charleston, LP v. County of Charleston, 360 S.C. 390, 399-400, 602 S.E.2d
39, 44-45 (2004) (finding that a refund suit filed by taxpayers who had pending
administrative refund cases should simply be dismissed without prejudice to
require the taxpayers to exhaust their administrative remedies under the
Revenue Procedures Act, but further crafting a special administrative remedy
for those taxpayers who had forgone their administrative remedies in reliance
upon orders issued in the judicial action and who would ordinarily be precluded
from pursuing those administrative remedies).
“In
years when there is a notice of property tax assessment, the property taxpayer,
within ninety days after the assessor mails the property tax assessment notice,
must give the assessor written notice of objection to one or more of the
following: the fair market value, the special use value, the assessment ration,
and the property tax assessment.” S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 (Supp. 2005).
In this case, the notice of property tax assessment was mailed on June 14,
2005.
The ninety day deadline for the taxpayer to provide written notice of objection
to the assessor, September 12, 2005, was clearly printed on the notice. Petitioner’s
written notice of objection was dated November 28, 2005 and stamped received by
the Charleston County Assessor’s Office on December 2, 2005. Therefore,
Petitioner’s written notice of objection was not timely filed.
By
failing to timely file a written objection to her assessment with the
Charleston County Assessor, Petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies with Charleston County before requesting a contested case before this
Court, and thus this matter shall be dismissed on that ground. Also,
Petitioner completely forfeited those remedies before the County, such that the
dismissal of this case acts as a bar to further proceedings on the challenged
assessment, both before the County and before this Court. Therefore, for the
reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the above-captioned case is DISMISSED because of Petitioner's
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies with Charleston County prior to
requesting this contested case proceeding.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
JOHN D. MCLEOD
Administrative
Law Judge
September 11, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina
|
